Pappu Kumar Sriwastav @ Suraj Prakash SrivastavversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2921 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2019 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                          Siwan
                 ======================================================
           1.     Pappu Kumar Sriwastav @ Suraj Prakash Srivastav Son of Dinanath Prasad
                  Sriwastav Village- Chauki Hasan, PS- Gautam Budh Nagar (Tarwara),
                  District- Siwan
           2.    Jai Prakash Sriwastav Son of Dinanath Prasad Sriwastav Village- Chauki
                 Hasan, PS- Gautam Budh Nagar (Tarwara), District- Siwan
                                                                         ... ... Appellant/s
                                                 Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Nayan Pati Devi Wife of Manai Sah Gond Village- Chauki Hasan, PS-
                  Gautam Budh Nagar (Tarwara), District- Siwan
                                                                   ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Subodh Kumar
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   23-06-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   Spl.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

                               2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

                   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

                   Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST

                   Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide

                   order dated 19.02.2025 in A.B.P. No. 249 of 2025 passed by the

                   learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special

                   Judge, Siwan in connection with Complaint Case No. 07 of

                   2019 registered under Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the Indian

                   Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

                               3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2921 of 2025(7) dt.23-06-2026
                                             2/5




          case was taken up on 12.05.2026, when no one had appeared on

          behalf of the O.P. No.2, thereafter the case was again taken up

          on 13.05.2026, when learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          complainant had appeared and sought two weeks time for filing

          counter affidavit and the case was directed to be listed on

          16.06.2026 but then no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean

          antecedent and the informant alleges that on 01.11.2019 at 06:30

          P.M., accused persons came and started abusing by taking caste

          name and appellant no. 2 assaulted the complainant by farsa

          causing injury on head, while Tej Prakash assaulted by rod

          causing injury on nose, and thereafter, Braj Kishore by butt of

          daab and Aditya along with Deepak assaulted by rod causing

          injury on body and Braj Kishore assaulted Sukhdev by butt of

          daab causing injury on head, further, Tej Prakash, Deepak and

          Pappu assaulted Prem Chand by rod causing injury and wife of

          Tej Prakash assaulted Shiv Dayal by brick and Aditya assaulted

          Satyendra by rod causing injury on back.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated

          in the instant case by the complainant. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2921 of 2025(7) dt.23-06-2026
                                             3/5




          that it does not appear probable that complainant with such

          certainty could have alleged who assaulted whom and where

          and by what. It is further submitted that the complaint petition

          does not even remotely suggest the motive/reason for the

          occurrence. It is also submitted that allegation as alleged in the

          complaint petition does not inspire confidence for the reason

          that the date of occurrence is 01.11.2019 and the complaint case

          came to be instituted on 21.01.2020 i.e. after a delay of more

          than 80 days. It is next submitted that in the complaint petition,

          it is also alleged that after the occurrence took place, the

          complainant and the injured went to the Doctor and got

          themselves treated and thereafter they came to the police station

          for getting an FIR instituted but then the police asked the

          complainant to get the issue resolved by a Panchayati. It is

          further submitted that if the police did not institute an FIR, in

          that event, the complainant ought to have moved before the

          superior authority bringing to their notice that despite being

          assaulted by the side of the appellants, the police are not

          instituting an FIR. It is thus submitted that a bald plea in the

          complaint petition has been been taken that the complainant had

          gone to the police station but her FIR was not instituted. It is

          further submitted that if what has been alleged is a correct fact,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2921 of 2025(7) dt.23-06-2026
                                             4/5




          the doctor would have informed the police that injured persons

          have come for treatment but then that is also not the case. It is

          also submitted that on account of dispute relating to land, an

          altercation had taken place as side of the complainant was trying

          to capture the land of the side of the appellants and on objection,

          a heated argument took place. It is further submitted that

          complaint petition also does not even remotely suggest who was

          the Doctor who treated the complainant and the injured.

                       6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          appellants next submits that it is very easy to file a complaint

          case and bring two witnesses before the learned trial court and

          based on the evidence brought on the record by the complainant

          and her witnesses, cognizance is taken but then the learned

          Magistrate does not have any wherewithal to examine or to

          arrive at a conclusion that as to whether what is being brought

          on record is a correct fact or not. It is further submitted that once

          cognizance is taken, the trauma begins. It is also submitted that

          it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the learned

          trial court did not ask a basic question from the complainant that

          who was the doctor who treated her and the injured. It is

          submitted that since cognizance has been taken by an order

          dated 01.10.2024, as such the appellants apprehend their arrest.
           Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2921 of 2025(7) dt.23-06-2026
                                                        5/5




                     It is also submitted that appellants never received any summon

                     nor bailable or non-bailable warrant but then police came

                     knocking the door of the appellants as such they came to know

                     about their implication in the instant complaint case. Learned

                     counsel for the appellants further submits that this perhaps

                     explains why no counter affidavit has been filed by the

                     complainant despite time granted.

                                  7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State

                     opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and

                     submits that since cognizance has been taken, as such a prima

                     facie case is made out.

                                  8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                     Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to

                     the appellants but since cognizance has been taken, as such the

                     appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to

                     surrender before the learned Trial Court on 14.07.2026, if the

                     appellants surrender on 14.07.2026, in that event, the learned

                     Trial Court shall consider the case on the same day, keeping in

                     mind the observations of this court, as recorded hereinabove.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T